Navy: New ‘Star Wars’ Gun So Cheap, Fast, Powerful That Enemies Will Just Give Up

[big_dog]

Source: The Raw Story

The U.S. Navy is planning sea trials for a weapon that can fire a low-cost, 23-pound projectile at seven times the speed of sound using electromagnetic energy, a “Star Wars” technology that will make enemies think twice, the Navy’s research chief said. Rear Admiral Matthew Klunder, the chief of Naval Research, told a round table group recently the futuristic electromagnetic rail gun had already undergone extensive testing on land and would be mounted on the USNS Millinocket, a high-speed vessel, for sea trials beginning in 2016.

“It’s now reality and it’s not science fiction. It’s actually real. You can look at it. It’s firing,” said Klunder, who planned to discuss progress on the system later with military and industry leaders at a major maritime event – the Sea-Air-Space Exposition – near Washington. The Navy research chief said that cost differential – $25,000 for a railgun projectile versus $500,000 to $1.5 million for a missile – will make potential enemies think twice about the economic viability of engaging U.S. forces. Weapons like the electromagnetic rail gun could help U.S. forces retain their edge and give them an asymmetric advantage over rivals, making it too expensive to use missiles to attack U.S. warships because of the cheap way to defeat them.

Current projectiles leaving a railgun have a muzzle energy of about 32 megajoules of force, said Rear Admiral Bryant Fuller, the Navy’s chief engineer. He said one megajoule would move a one-ton object at about 100 mph. “We’re talking about a projectile that we’re going to send well over 100 miles, we’re talking about a projectile that can go over Mach 7, we’re talking about a projectile that can go well into the atmosphere,” Klunder said.

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/08/navy-thinks-new-star-wars-gun-so-cheap-fast-powerful-that-enemies-will-just-give-up/

---

[TwilightGardener]

1. Well, good.

[big_dog]

3. SUPERFAST GUN MACH 7 General Atomics Blitzer Railgun

it can fire into the atmosphere

&hd=1

[fleabiscuit]

34. Stark Enterprises! n/t

[OutNow]

20. Remember Viet Nam?

Oh yeah, the superior technology and fire power will win the war in Viet Nam. Just look, we had bombers, napalm, agent orange, claymores, thousands of Hueys. etc. etc. The other side had punji sticks and bicycles. So, how did that turn out? One example sticks in my mind, even after 45 years. We seeded the jungle trails that made up the Ho Chi Mihn trail with high tech sensors that could detect when large numbers of troops were in the area. In response, the NLF hung buckets of human urine along the trail. This triggered the sensors and we proceeded to bomb the hell out of the empty jungle.

I'm sure there are many similar examples of how technology allowed us to win the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Oh, we didn't win? Oh.

[Brother Buzz]

28. I remember acoustic and seismic sensors, but I never heard of the smell sensors

The smell sensors must have been "double super secret background" way above my pay grade.

[delrem]

39. easy enough to google it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viet_Cong_and_Vietnam_People's_Army_logistics_and_equipment

[Brother Buzz]

48. I learned of the other sensors in the military decades before the internets were even invented

Never was there any mention of the chemical sniffers. Amazing the things one can learn on DU.

[OutNow]

79. It's amazing what I remember from back in the day.....

I was USAF in Thailand and did computer operations work with sensor data. It was all punch card input back then. But I heard about the buckets of urine from a friend that was in LRRPs.

[Brother Buzz]

80. My S-2 officer was part of the Army liaison there and walked me through the whole process

Pretty heady stuff for a dumb draftee back in the day. I believe, with today's technology, McNamara's line could actually work real-time, but I guess remote sensing has made the whole idea totally obsolete.

[warrant46]

101. I'm sure some guys riding camels, carrying Enfields and living in Mud Huts

Will be shaking in their sandals at the mention of the Admiral's "Star Wars" </sarcasm>

[Feral Child]

2. Or deploy their own

cheap/fast/powerful hardware.

China will have those in 6 months.

[dembotoz]

5. with our luck they probably have already oursourced production to china

[yurbud]

75. assymetrical warfare will likely be the response.

[MicaelS]

4. I want to see data the rate of fire ..

Under combat conditions.

[Android3.14]

36. I'd bet that's classified

But judging from the fact that it must use an EM field, I'd suspect the rate of fire is about as fast as a machine can throw a metallic object into the magnetic field. I'd bet it could spray projectiles at a faster rate than anything of a comparable size.
The pertinent question is how quickly it depletes its power source on a ship. I'm figuring it probably uses capacitors much like a camera flash, or it has a classified compact power source with an output of extremely high amperage.

[jeff47]

53. Current test version is one-shot.

One-shot versions were used to select between two designs.

The winning design now has to make a version that automatically reloads. The railgun should be able to throw shells as fast as they can be mechanically loaded.

[Ash_F]

6. Isn't that what they said about Iraq?

Shock and Awe?

[kysrsoze]

66. Of course, we could always just work on cheaper energy sources, eliminating such needs... NAH!

[oldhippie]

14. It's a ballistic projectile ......

Armies have been aiming them for centuries. I think they'll figure it out.

[IronGate]

21. Ever seen a missile launcher on a ship in heavy seas?

The ship is pitching up and down while the launcher is holding steady.
Gyros take care of the problem of stability.
They'll probably use a radar control system to lock the gun onto a target.

[IronGate]

26. I guess we'll know soon enough.

It's supposed to be on display in San Diego in July.

[oldhippie]

32. {sigh} They have been doing it for centuries.....

... with 5" and bigger guns. How do you think anti-aircraft guns worked? And the Navy has been shooting ballistic projectiles at moving ships and aircraft for decades. How do you think the sailing ships in the 1600's shot at each other? Or the WWII battleships? And at mach seven you don't need to worry about leading the target very much.

[oldhippie]

61. True enough ...

I figured it looked like the illustration and was mounted in a turret. I sure would like to go see it when it goes on display.

I spent 28 years or so of my career doing military weapons testing and evaluation. I never worked on a rail gun, but I saw some at conferences and such that were maybe 20 feet long, small enough for a turret. Just imagine the acceleration of 0-Mach 7 in 20 ft.! Boggles the mind.

[OnlinePoker]

16. Gun is mounted on a turret

In the image in the OP, the railgun is shown in a turret. I can't look at the video here, but turrets are standard on ships and can point in any direction except aft or down(this would make for a very bad day for the ship's crew).

[DeSwiss]

8. Look Ma, I got a new Star Wars penis that can KILL in no time flat!!!

- You gotta hand to the Defense Department, they are determined to make war more and more fun! Now with Star Wars EMP-Guns!!!

There's your food stamp, unemployment, bridges, and highway money right there. Fuckers.

[Auggie]

12. +1,000,000

[AngryAmish]

27. penis

[Android3.14]

40. Not an EMP

Your thinking of the pulse originating from a nuclear explosion. The railgun is a weapon/device which simply uses an electric current and a magnetic field to accelerate a projectile.

Here is some other important information.

Food stamps constitute 70-80 billion,

Unemployment benefits come in at around $90 billion

Federal highway infrastructure is $146 billion

The cost of this weapon looks like it was about 35 million to 500 million.

It might be arguable that the weapon is unnecessary, ridiculously expensive or an ethical/moral outrage. However, at a cost that it is 7/1000 the cost of the cheapest of these social programs, to argue that this rail gun in particular is the cause of cuts to social programs is inaccurate.

Those cuts occur because our leaders on both sides of the aisle serve corporations rather than the people.

[DeSwiss]

58. And you're thinking that I must be someone who gives a damn......

...about the military or its stupid guns. I don't. There is no such thing as a cost-effective military weapon in my worldview. There are only military leaders who are simply Testosterone Cowboys who're killing people while they act out their space war and world domination fantasies. Besides, none of those social programs are designed to kill mothers, along with their kids and babies, quite the opposite. Militaries on the other hand, are a vestige of our barbaric past that this country and our weak leaders seem unable to shake off. But then, PEACE is haaaaarrrrrdd. It's not for the weak-of-knees. But by feeding it, we only keep this baby-killing institution alive.

- Think of it this way: If we took all the money we've spent on weapons and military garbage just this year and gave it to the people in cash instead of Hellfire missiles, think of how much peace we could buy with that?

[center]Among The Costs Of War: Billions A Year In A.C.?



http://www.npr.org/2011/06/25/137414737/among-the-costs-of-war-20b-in-air-conditioning

Q: And why are we air-conditioning our troops in Afghanistan?

A: Because guarding poppy fields is a hot job.





And of course, all of it leading to headlines like this. But then what did we expect?

We have to feed our private ''Corrections'' corporations something, now don't we?

The horrific toll of America's heroin 'epidemic'

Heroin Addiction at an all time high.


[font size=1]Chicago police make a heroin arrest


Two fresh-faced victims of heroin: Steven Lunardi (right) has been clean for more than a year,
but Stephanie Chiakas (left) died of an overdose, aged 17[/font]
[/center]

[Android3.14]

59. Regardless

I value accurate information, especially when folks with whom I share a progressive outlook are using inaccurate information to promote progressive causes.
When we use inaccurate information, it allows conservatives to tell independents to dismiss our causes because we are basing our opinions on ignorance.

[DeSwiss]

62. In my 62 years, I have never seen where accurate information......

...about anything has deterred conservatives nor an independent from pursuing their own self-interest. Or even Democrats for that matter. Accuracy means absolutely, squat.

- In this corrupt system called America, only money matters.

''The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.''

~George Bernard Shaw

[Android3.14]

98. Look Ma, another inaccurate statement

"Accuracy means absolutely, squat. "
I appreciate your passion. But what you imply is that a person should celebrate inaccuracy because he or she exists in a corrupt system. This is nonsensical.
Also, the Shaw quote is actually praising accuracy. He is saying that persons who are incapable of making accurate statements will label persons who are capable of making accurate statements as cynics.
I'm sure that Nate Silver would found that accuracy has meaning, influence, and confers power.
538
If you've been operating for 62 years under the mistaken impression that accuracy has no meaning, then it is probably too late to convince you otherwise. I have to ask myself, however, if your situation at age 62 would have been improved had you recognized the value of making decisions based on accurate statements earlier in your life.

"Accuracy is the twin brother of honesty; inaccuracy, of dishonesty." - Nathaniel Hawthorne
"Accuracy is, in every case, advantageous to beauty, and just reasoning to delicate sentiment. In vain would we exalt the one by depreciating the other." - David Hume
"Accuracy of statement is one of the first elements of truth; inaccuracy is a near kin to falsehood." -Tryon Edwards
"Accuracy of language is one of the bulwarks of truth." - Anna Jameson

[Ash_F]

70. DeSwiss was correct. It is a EMP weapon

It uses a EMP to fire.

And the government's military spending, and black-budget spending, completely dwarfs those programs you listed.

[Android3.14]

97. No.

It uses an electromagnetic field, not an electromagnetic pulse.

And of course total military spending dwarfs those programs. The cost of this specific weapon system, however, does not.
DeSwiss wrote "There's your food stamp, unemployment, bridges, and highway money right there." Regardless of whether the government spends too much on the military (which it does by several orders of magnitude), DeSwiss' statement about this weapon system is incorrect.

[bananas]

9. It will be on display in San Diego on July 8

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/apr/07/navy-railgun-sandiego-display-july/

Navy to unveil railgun in San Diego
Star Wars-like weapon will be on public display at Naval Base San Diego in July
By Jeanette Steele6 a.m.April 7, 2014

This summer, San Diego will host the public unveiling of a military weapon that the Navy’s chief scientist calls a Star Wars-like technology that is nevertheless now viable.

In July, the Navy will hold a static display of its $500 million electromagnetic railgun prototype program at San Diego Naval Base, aboard the Joint High Speed Vessel Millinocket. It’s the same ship on which the Navy will perform the first maritime firing test of the weapon in 2016.

“The American public has never seen it,” said Rear Adm. Matthew Klunder, chief of naval research, in a recent telephone press conference.

“Frankly, we think it might be the right time for them to know what we’ve been doing behind closed doors in a Star Wars fashion,” he said. “It’s now reality. It’s not science fiction. It’s real and you can look at it.”

<snip>

That article links to http://www.emlsymposium.com/

ANNOUNCEMENT UPDATE!

The USNS MILLINOCKET (Joint High Speed Vessel-3) will visit San Diego on Tuesday, 8 July 2014. U.S. Railgun technologies will be on board for viewing including advanced launcher, pulsed power and hyper velocity projectile components. Key industry partners will be on hand to discuss their contributions. Companies represented include BAE, General Atomics, Raytheon, K2, L3, TDK and ATK.

Symposium attendees will travel by charter bus from the Symposium venue at Torrey Pines to Naval Station San Diego. This will be the first public look at these advanced prototypes aboard the ship class planned for the first at-sea demonstration. There will also be historical displays, ship tours, and presentations by leading U.S. Railgun Engineers. The Symposium dinner will be served aboard USNS MILLINOCKET that evening. The bus tour of San Diego will depart from the pier following dinner. Don't miss this special event.

Again, the 17th International EML Symposium dates are now 7-11 July 2014. The Symposium venue will remain the same at Hilton La Jolla Torrey Pines. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. This will be a truly special event and we look forward to seeing you in July.

<snip>

Hopefully it will be open for viewing by the general public, not just symposium attendees.

[chknltl]

10. Will it fire depleted uranium munitions? nt

[think]

31. Hope not...../nt

[Android3.14]

42. Probably

If you can put a metal band around it, then you can accelerate it with a railgun.

[ManiacJoe]

43. DU is unlikely as it it too heavy.

Tungsten is more likely.

[jeff47]

56. The shell needs to be magnetic to be launched.

DU isn't magnetic.

Now, you could encase DU within another material that is magnetic.....

[jmowreader]

57. At Mach 7 you could make the projectiles from any metal and they'd work

My bet is steel - very cheap.

[arcane1]

78. I admit, while reading the article I thought about broken-down washing machines.

[underpants]

11. Hasn't there been centuries of no-one-will-mess-with-us weapons?

I am asking.

[melm00se]

92. yup

in the last 500 or so years everything from crossbows to this thing have been touted as the weapon to end all weapons.

[underpants]

93. That's what I thought

They tend to be more like Impetus for other people to say "Oh yeah? Watch what I can make"

[melm00se]

94. that is certainly part of it

but there is also the need to protect yourself from the inevitable guy out there with the bigger rock who is not shy in using it.

I can see the advantage of using non-explosive kinetic shells and using a non-combustible method of propelling them.

the projectiles are easier and cheaper to make and safer to store onboard.

the only issue that I can see is that the gunners are limited to line of sight. I could be wrong but I believe that you lose a lot of energy when the reaches the apex of it's ballistic arch.

[eggplant]

13. I hope they can aim it correctly.

[ManiacJoe]

44. No problem.

Navies have been using gyro-stabilized gun turrets to launch ballistic shells for decades.

[eggplant]

63. (I was kidding)

[Mika]

15. Is this what took down flight 370?

[Android3.14]

46. These folks sound like kooks

I hope you are joking.
This lady sounds like a crazy, and probably crazy to even a libertarian. She thinks there is a 70-year old conspiracy to depopulate the world.
Also, the railgun isn't a laser weapon.

[bemildred]

17. If nukes won't do the job, and drones, and cruise missiles, will yet another big gun?

Who can forget the Paris Gun?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Gun

[burrowowl]

23. I knew about Big Bertha

but not the Paris Gun, thanks for the link.

[bemildred]

29. My pleasure.

I'm a fan of zillions of little guns myself, the counter to concentration of force is dispersal of resistance, and the 20th Century showed that well.

[ManiacJoe]

47. It's not that big. Think of something the size of of an army tank shell.

[bemildred]

50. I know it's not like the Paris Gun.

It's on a ship, it uses magnetism, not explosives, and I'll bet the projectile goes much faster.

I'm not opposed to railguns, they have possibilities, just the idea that we need better ways to destroy things.

[happyslug]

82. What about the "Gustav" and Gerald Bull's Project "Babylon" and HARP?

Last edited Wed Apr 9, 2014, 01:26 AM - Edit history (1)

Gustav was the most powerful cannon ever built and used in combat, Range 25 miles, caliber 31 inch, 80 cm:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwerer_Gustav

Gerald Bull was the big researcher on Big cannons in the 1950s through the 1980s, His guns reached heights of over 100 miles (Range was not given, for his project was to get objects into space):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Bull

Bull later did Project Babylon in the 1980s for Saddam. It appears Saddam agreed to fund the project in exchange for Bull working on improving his missiles. Bull agreed to those terms and is believed to have been Killed by MOSSAD in 1990 for his work on the missiles not Project Babylon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Babylon

Bull's work in the 1960s was HARP. Project HARP still hold the record for the HIGHEST any projectile from a Cannon has ever gone, 110 miles into space but NOT into Orbit. The Cannon was only 176 feet long:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_HARP

http://www.astronautix.com/articles/abroject.htm

HARP comes back every so often, for it promises to put objects into space at a 1/4 of the price of rockets. A Babylon type gun firing a projectile that includes a rocket that is to be fired when it is needed (Bull's big research in the 1950s and the 1970s, before and after HARP, was on rocket assisted projectiles for artillery, to extend the range of such rounds AND what is called a "Base bleed" round.

The "Base Bleed" is a round of artillery that releases a small amount of compressed air out of its base. The purpose of such a release is to reduce the drag on the Round as it goes through the air, and air reaches the base of the round and tries to fill the vacuum produces by the base for it is flat. The resulting vacuum acts as a drag on the round, the air release is to prevent such a vacuum from occurring, thus extending the range of the round.

Bull also did research on re-designing artillery rounds so that the base was not as flat also to extend the range of the round.

Bull also worked on the longest range 155 mm and 8 inch guns used today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GC-45_howitzer

The big research today on such guns generally involves either Hydrogen (It has the highest speed of any chemical when it burns, thus can provide the fastest speed) or Electric Rail Guns. The last time I read about the electric rail guns was they had a problem preventing them from blowing up. Seems that problem has been resolved.

As to hydrogen powered guns, Hydrogen burns at about 35,000 mph, which is the fastest one can propel anything if hydrogen is the source of the energy to propel the projectile. The Speed of sound is about 767 miles per hour (Varies based on temperature and height), thus 35,000 divided by 800 equal mark 43.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound

15,600 meters per second, or 35.00 miles per hour, the burning speed of Hydrogen:

http://books.google.com/books?id=psiYLwW15DoC&pg=PA346&lpg=PA346&dq=Hydrogen+Fuel+speed+-auto+-catalyst+-land+-for+-air+-refilling&source=bl&ots=a3FkqnF5K7&sig=-DEUWTJvXd1pmKwM6ZRXgGJf4kM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uNREU9DrE8ya0gH7hID4CA&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Hydrogen%20Fuel%20speed%20-auto%20-catalyst%20-land%20-for%20-air%20-refilling&f=false

Technically, given a rail gun uses electricity to propel its charges it should do better then hydrogen, for then the restriction is the speed of light. Mark 7 is NOT that fast. Apollo 11 reaches 50,000 mph on its way to the moon, but then it used the moon's own gravity to achieve that speed (Apollo had used Hydrogen rockets to get off the earth and out of earth's orbit, but it was planned to use the moon's and on the return trip, the earth's gravity to speed up Apollo even faster.

Please note Mark 7 is less then 5600 miles per hour or 8200 feet per second. The .220 swift round goes 4200 ft per second (The 220 swift is also noted for wearing out barrels).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.220_Swift

Thus this rail gun goes twice as fast as the 220 swift, but is that really a game changer? It is more then three times faster then the 30'06 and the ,50 browning but at what costs? It seems the Navy has solved the problem of the Rail gun, the old fashion way, by reducing what it can do so that the Navy has something for its money, but is it really worth the extra costs OVER a conventional round? I have my doubts.

I am sorry, Mark 7 is within the capability of conventional weapons, maybe not weapons powered by conventional smokeless powder, but hydrogen could push things faster.

[bemildred]

85. Yes, I remember Mr. Bull.

And the endless discussion about his guns.

As a weapon I think it's ludicrous, this railgun, like the laser weapons, not because it won't destroy things well, but because there are much cheaper and simpler ways to do that (destroy things). And any railgun is going to be like that.

With artillery, being able to shoot a bit farther is a big deal, you can shoot at your enemies while they can't reach you. But nowdays, there is no place they can't reach you. (Well, maybe underground.)

I do think the most interesting thing about railguns is the potential to be a space launch booster. You can get the vehicle up high (110 miles seems plenty) and then light the rocket. As you say. And with a railgun, you can control the boost better, more even and lower acceleration to get up to speed. And used that way, they have possibilities for commercial travel too.

[happyslug]

88. Remember the 110 height was NOT with a rail gun, but one using conventional gunpowder.

Last edited Wed Apr 9, 2014, 10:34 PM - Edit history (1)

Now, the gun powder was a very fast burning powder, thus the 16 inch tube was 179 feet long for maximum burning of that gun powder and thus maximum speed. Using Hydrogen could produce even faster speeds (up to 35,000 mph).

Electric Rail Guns could, in theory, shoot even faster, up to the speed of light. The problem has been once you go to fast, the barrels tend to burst. Thus this rail gun is only twice as fast as the .220 swift round. Mark 7 is good, but you are not even at escape velocity at that speed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity

Escape velocity is mark 33 on earth. As you go higher in the atmosphere the actual speed of escape velocity drops. If you can use the earth's rotation to help you (by being near the Equator) you can see a less significant, but yet significant drop in escape velocity (Thus Bull put his HARP gun on Barbados and why the US Launch sites are Cape Canaveral in Florida).

Escape velocity from earth is 11.2 km/Second of about 25,000 mph, from the Earth AND the social system, 42.1 km/second or about 94,000 mph, Hydrogen can get you away from the earth, but not the Social System, thus when the US send out it probes to go outside the Social System, NASA had to swing them by the sun a couple of time, then increase they speed by using the gravitational pull of Jupiter and Saturn to get to the speed needed to get into deep space.

Thus to get out of the Social System, without using gravitational pull to increase the speed of what is being sent, will require some sort of rail gun OR Nuclear pulsation, both can get to the speed of light if you can control the other parts of such a launch system.

As an ex-artilleryman, range is rarely an issue. Armor and Infantry are taught NEVER to go outside the range of their supporting Artillery. Greater range of Artillery helps increase such movement, but in many ways moving the artillery is more important (and the greater range requires greater weight which tends to slow down movement, all others things constant. Thus the US Army was satisfied with towed 105mm Howitzers, till they decided to speed up their infantry by putting them, first in Armored Personal Vehicles like the M113, and then the M2 Bradley Infantry fighting Vehicles.

This required greater range for artillery, which increased the weight of the Artillery which involved replacing the 105mm towed artillery piece with Self Propelled 155 Howitzers. A 105 mm howitzer at 2 and 1/2 tons towed by a Truck the M35 which weighs 6 1/2 tons, total weight 9 tons. A M109 155mm Self propelled howitzer that weight 27.5 tons, which requires another vehicle, either a Truck or a variation of the M109 to haul its ammunition. Thus a weapon whose total weight in operation (Including the truck to haul it with) weighing in at 9 tons, replaced by a combination that weighs anywhere from 32 to 54 tons (32 ton if the support vehicle is a truck, 54 tons if the support vehicle is a track vehicle like the M109).

Thus the famous debate, is the M109 that much of an improvement over the M101A1 to justify the increase FUEL usage to move 54 tons compared to 9 tons? Both the M109 and M101A1 could be set up in about the same time period, and moved out just as quickly (Towed 155 howitzers take a lot longer to emplace and remove, and thus never considered as replacements for the M101A1 105mm howitzer).

During the attack on Iraq in 2002, the M109 ended up almost forgotten. The Surging Tank and infantry forces constantly called in air strikes instead. Now, once the war became one of Guerrilla, the M109 came back into favor, but in that situation was it really an improvement over the M101A1? The 155 mm round has twice the blast as the 105mm round and thus can destroy targets with Cover, that could take a 105 mm round. On the other hand, the M101 A1 could be hauled long distances by trucks, for both use wheels. The M109 being a tracked vehicle has limitations as to the life of its tracks (around 2000 miles, as opposed to 20 to 50,000 miles for Truck tires).

Was it cost effective to replace the M101A1 with the M109? A good case was made for such a change during the Cold war, given the power adn might of the Soviet Union Red Army. The greater blast and range of the M109 would have been worth the extra cost. The problem is that since the collapse of the Soviet Union, has it been effective to keep the M109 around, or would it have been more cost effective to replace it with the M119, the newest towed 105mm howitzer?

The US Army put its 8 inch howitzers into storage in the 1990s, on the grounds such Corp level artillery is better replaced by Attack Helicopters and Attack Jets in the post Cold war era. In the post Cold War era, the US Army's most likely foes are something like the Iraqi and Afghan Guerrillas, not an armor attack. Yes, Iraq had such armor in the First Gulf war, but that was long in the past by the time the US attacked Iraq in 2003. Given such situations range of the Howitzer is NOT that much of a factor, it being on call and near are greater factors.

Almost every potential enemy we will face will NOT have the counter Artillery ability the old Soviet Union had, thus the armor of the M109 is not needed. Any potential enemy will have inferior Air Power then the US, thus anything more powerful then a 105mm Howitzer would NOT be needed, and if needed could be provided by air power firing missiles.

On the other hand the M102 and M119 (The modern 105mm howitzers replacements for the old WWII era M101A1 Howitzer) weigh either less (the M102) or the same (the M119) as the old M101A1. Both can be hauled about by trucks, and with modern electronics do anything the latest M109 can do. Both would be cheaper to operate, cheaper to get into combat, and easy to move in Combat. What you lose in Blast and range, you more then make up in fuel savings and speed (and the increase ability to move the weapon quickly to be near the enemy and support friendly forces).

Sorry, range of artillery is not that important now a day, what is important is getting fire on target when needed, and the 105 mm Howitzers can do that at substantial cost savings.

[bemildred]

89. "Never tangle with an old redleg about artillery".

A sound maxim, and I follow it. I worked at Ft. Sill in OK for a while, but I was not shooting anything.

I do think a EM railgun on the moon has a lot of possiblities, once you figure out how to get it up there.

[Semivir]

19. Where can I get one? (Just kidding!)

[olddad56]

25. probably on the black market after we have sold enough of them to our 'allies'.

[Mnpaul]

73. You can build your own

Hacked Gadgets has many different designs. I like this one. It has the "look&quot except for the light bulb).
http://hackedgadgets.com/2009/05/07/mv-coilmaster-mark1-coil-gun/

[olddad56]

24. this sounds like cold war saber rattling

why else would the Navy want to brag about a weapon like this.

[arcane1]

77. To pump up the stock prices of the companies who build the parts?

[CanonRay]

30. That thing looks like an old Civil War Ironclad...

the Monitor?

[Thor_MN]

68. First thing I thought of on seeing the graphic.

But I think 27 lbs at Mach 8 isn't going to let 2 of them duke it out all day.

[MisterP]

33. this was covered by H Bruce Franklin

they've said the right weapon would save lives and finally end war altogether for 220 years now

[yesphan]

37. $25,000.00 for a projectile,

$2,500,000,000.00 for the gun. Oh, and there's the price of the ship etc...............

Disclaimer: I made up the price of the gun, I hope.

[WatermelonRat]

99. Seeing as cruise missiles cost over a million dollars apiece, it's actually pretty cost-effective.

(as far as modern military equipment goes, of course)

[Hekate]

38. That's what they said about the A-Bomb,in case anyone remembers. What happens is, everybody wants on

Everybody will want one of these, and it won't "solve" a damn thing.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

55. It's what they said about the Maxim Machine Gun, too.

It would bring peace, just because of its killing power.

The Navy needs to factor in the enemy leaders' capacity to send cannon fodder. I don't think everyone will put up their hands.

And yes, I'm sure the Russians, Chinese, Indians, etc etc are already working on prototypes.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

41. "Low cost projectile"

Or:

[paulkienitz]

45. interesting that they compare it costwise to a million dollar missile

but not to old-fashioned artillery, which already has about the same capabilities at about the same cost.

[jeff47]

60. We no longer have that "old-fashioned artillery".

The navy retired our battleships with large cannons. We're down to relatively small guns, missiles and aircraft.

Main advantages of this gun are going to be rate of fire, projectile speed and taking up less space - since they don't need explosives to fire, you don't need as much space for ammunition.

It should be possible to crank up the rate of fire to absurd speeds - only mechanical components are going to be dropping shells into the gun. The rails will operate as quickly as current can be switched on and off.

And high projectile speed means you can use it as an anti-aircraft/anti-missile gun as well as anti-ship and shore bombardment.

[paulkienitz]

71. using electricity instead of explosives is a lot like using batteries instead of gasoline in a car

It may be cleaner and cooler and smoother and more efficient, but no way are you going to pack as big a supply of launch energy into a given ship that way. In order to sustain a greater rate of fire than traditional artillery, you have to have an enormous source of electrical energy. It is not plausible that such a source can actually do more launches with less bulk than a supply of cordite can, even if it doesn't try to reach a greater speed or range.

[kentauros]

83. That's probably why the Navy is the primary government investor

in Polywell Fusion:

Polywell Fusion - Intriguing Alternative Aneutronic Fusion Power Generator

Contact with United States Navy

[jeff47]

86. Depends on how long you want it to fire rapidly.

A bank of capacitors or similar could be sized depending on how many times you want to fire the gun rapidly. Which you could alter based on the ship's size. A small ship might get, say, 100 shots while a large ship could get 1000.

The space savings comes from re-use. Those bags of cordite are used up after each shell is fired.

[paulkienitz]

95. where does the electricity you put into the capacitors come from?

It isn't about the capacitors. Those are just part of the firing mechanism. I'm talking about the energy source you charge them with. Unless you've got an oversized nuclear reactor onboard, you need to have a bunch of generators and a bunch of fuel, and the bunch of fuel by itself has to have a mass roughly equal to that of the pile of cordite used by traditional guns, if you don't want to run out at an awkward time.

[jeff47]

102. Since the ships designed to carry it haven't been designed yet

we don't know what their power plant will be. We are still quite a long ways from ships being normally outfitted with this gun.

I'd expect a nuclear reactor, but we'll see.

[WatermelonRat]

100. Old fashioned artillery is shorter range and less accurate.

[Javaman]

49. until the opposition steals the tech. nt

[WhoWoodaKnew]

74. or just develop it as well.

[Javaman]

51. on the plus side...

we'll get better capacitors and batteries.

[Warpy]

52. Yeah, that's what they said about the trebuchet

and every other military "advance" that has ever been made, that it was so terrifying that enemies would crumple like cheap suits and the war would be won once they caught sight of it.

Another year, another toy for the plutocrats to kill the rest of us off more efficiently.

[Kelvin Mace]

54. Serioulsy?

Wasn't the atomic bomb supposed to be the weapon that meant no one would mess with us?

Also, the concept of rail guns pre-date Star Wars and were never featured in any of the movies.

[Paulie]

64. This is just a stop gap

Until:

http://m.

[ManiacJoe]

65. Pretty good show for the 1970s.

[MicaelS]

91. You know they're re-doing it, don't you?

Same story, same old characters, more female characters, great new animation. Space Battleship Yamato 2199.

[kentauros]

84. That would be farther off than this:

[edbermac]

67. NRA members going orgasmic over this.

[idendoit]

69. Just what we need, another Navy boondoggle.

The only way to generate the 5 MILLION + amps current of pulsed DC needed to fire this thing is with a super capacitor. That takes time to recharge via a stand alone generator. So that means extra space taken up by a necessary generator and bank of super capacitors, for multiple shots, taking away valuable ships space to fire a bullet over the horizon that can't be guided. A giant leap back wards. Are these the same clowns that approved this biggest DOD debacles in history? Those would be the Little Crappy Ships than come in at $40 billion and are already falling apart.

[CFLDem]

72. On the bright side Debby/Derek downers-

at least we know one of the weapons the upcoming world war will be fought with.



Science rocks!

[They_Live]

76. Wasn't there another story about a new precise "Laser Beam"

weapon just yesterday? These are just dandy... until everybody gets one.

[chrisstopher]

81. Suggestion

Can we load John Boehner onto that thing and fire him at North Korea?

[Kablooie]

87. Sounds like Rumsfeld is back.

Shock and awe.,The enemy will just how down their weapons and give up.

And we are sure to sell them to other countries because, hey, there is profit to be had, and then, in the future, they will turn against us and use them on our troops.

[Orsino]

90. Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. n/t

[roninjedi]

96. Don't try to frighten us with your sorcerer's ways

Lord Orsino